 Welcome, everyone. I'm not sure if I should still wait for a few more seconds on my clock. It's 2pm in the afternoon Geneva time. And I'll just wait for one more minute. Welcome. My name is Stefan Schmoldt. I am a cash technical advisor with the international rescue committee and one of the co-chairs of the global protection class does cash for protection task team. I welcome you all to the webinar cash for protection task team and integration of GBV risk mitigation in cash, which is part of the GPC's global protection forum 2020. We are very excited to have seen also already in the run up to this event. So much interest in this event and we'll give our best to ensure that you will leave this webinar with new and useful information for your work. I want to start just with the usual few notes on housekeeping. Everyone here is a mute unless they are speaker. We hope that you understand that. Please use the chat box, however, for any questions or comments throughout the webinar. We allocated towards the end of the session of the webinar quite some time for Q&A. So there will be space for that. This session will be recorded and later uploaded onto the GPC website. I hope that everyone now had the time to join. And without further ado, I'm handing over to Jennifer Chase, the global GBV AOR coordinator, who is also representing the GPC on this webinar to share a few opening remarks over to you, Jennifer. Hi, everyone. I'm really happy that you joined this webinar. I think we're going to really learn a lot. Not just from the panels, but from each other. And so I look forward to the discussion and the Q&A. So we know that the cash voucher assistance can contribute to protection objectives. We also know that the GPC provides the GV prevention and response, child protection, access to health care and other services, while also putting decision-making power in women's hands. These are the positive sides. And the task team leads will discuss the stock taking on cash for protection programming as we move ahead. And the other AORs as well as the GPC, we recognize that there is still work to be done on ensuring that protection and specifically gender and GBV risk analysis informs the design implementation and monitoring of cash and voucher assistance. The GBV AOR, which is led by UNFPA is rolling out guidance and support for GBV coordination groups in the field with concrete actions they can take to ensure GBV risk mitigation in cash and voucher assistance programming. Working closely with the existing cash working groups. And that's at all levels. We must continue to bridge the protection and the cash voucher assistance communities to ensure that all CVA reaches those furthest behind, especially as it grows in scale and scope. And we know that cash was one of the issues that was discussed in the grand bargain, and we need to make sure that we roll it out in a way that is responsible and does no harm. I am going to turn it back to Steven for the rest of the discussions. Thank you so much, Jennifer. I however will hand over directly to Barbara Weierman from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. Barbara is the SEC's gender and SGBV advisor for humanitarian aid, who also agreed to share a few open rewards. Over to you Barbara. Thank you very much. And I would like to welcome all participants on behalf of STC and thank you for the opportunity to make some opening remarks. STC strongly advocates for the increased use of cash and voucher assistance whenever it is the best approach to meet people's needs, while at the same time stressing the centrality of protection and the importance of doing no harm. STC has been an early adopter of cash and voucher assistance, implementing its first cash projects in the 1990s in the Balkans. Ever since then, STC has been a strong advocate for CVA. So we, for example, we implemented around directly around 30 projects in the last 24 years, and we have been supporting partner organizations through the contents partners such as WFP, UNHCR, UNICEF, ICRC and IFRC. We are advocating for the increased uptake of CVA in global discussions through the Grand Bargain cashworks team, and as a part of the Global Cash Forum. And finally, as a donor, Switzerland is providing financial support to partners engaged in CVA. STC welcomes the combined efforts of partners coming together under the Global Protection Cluster's Cash Protection Task Team to better understand how different modalities can influence protection outcomes in humanitarian settings. The stock taking paper brings together evidence gathered by members of the areas of responsibility on GBV and child protection and puts forward key recommendations for humanitarian stakeholders on how to use CVA to support protection outcomes. We look forward to building on these findings in today's discussion. While learning from the field suggests that CVA can support protection outcomes for women and girls if well designed and part of a comprehensive services, including case management, evidence also shows that a lack of GBV risk analysis and CVA programs can lead to stigma, tension, or even violence against women who receive cash. STC is thus actively supporting the efforts of UNFPA and the GBV AOR to ensure that protection risk analysis informs CVA design implementation and monitoring across all sectors. To this end STC is seconding a roving expert to UNFPA for 2020 and 2021. Today we welcome the opportunity to hear case snapshots from field operations of both protection and GBV risk mitigation in CVA and of CVA in GBV response. I look forward to the opportunity to reflect together with you on learnings and on promising practices in CVA and protection. Thank you very much. I look forward to a very interesting webinar on with this hand it back to you, Stefan. Thank you so much. I will now just proceed very briefly to present the agenda. So as you can see here on the slide, we will have the first section will be the presentation of the cash and protection, cash protection task team and the stop taking paper on cash and protection which was already mentioned. And we will also share the pre-survey results that some of you have kindly completed. In the second section we will talk a little bit about a few tools that are coming up or coming out soon and we'll have a very mini training on GBV risk analysis. The second session will be led by Jonah Friedman from UNFPA together with Christine Heckman from UNICEF. And the third part of this webinar will focus on best practices and lessons learned from the field. Here we will hear from CARE, from IRC, from UNFPA, from Empowerment 8 and from UNHCR. And then, as I already mentioned before, there will be a larger session if we don't lose too much time on the way for Q&A. So please keep your questions either until then or even better mention them already in the chat box because we will try to organize the questions and group them accordingly into groups. Okay, now I will start to move into, to share firstly the pre-survey results with you. As you can see on the slide to the questions have you used cash or vouchers before and protection program to support protection outcomes. The majority of people who did fill out the survey in advance said yes. Not so many said no and very few were not really sure but also shows us that there is some room to with potentially training. That's also one of the things that we identified in the stock taking paper to improve that situation. Next slide please. The second question was do you feel equipped with knowledge, skills and tools to use cash and vouchers and protection programming. And here we can see that, let me just go into the details. 45% feel somewhat familiar with the knowledge and skills and tools to use cash and voucher for assistance for protection outcomes. 22.5% each feel very familiar or not so familiar and again 5% feel extremely familiar or not at all familiar with that. I think those numbers are also speaking more or less for themselves. And the next slide, yes exactly. The last question of the pre-survey, pre-session survey was if no, if you do not feel that you are yet ready to use CVA for protection outcomes. What are the barriers to you gaining the knowledge, the skills and the tools. And here I have copied out a few quotes but then also grouped a few things. So here one was an opportunity to learn and implement just a materialized now. So there are, I interpret this as things are coming out, but I haven't been able to use them yet. Context analysis is still needed to know what could be most impactful. Which is also interesting because it is in line with what we have found in the stock taking paper. Some respondents don't work on protection or protection outcomes or they lack protection or also CVA understanding. If you find had just a trouble to find the time to go through the existing materials and resources. And I cannot see this slide right now. Let's go into my own slides. Sorry for that. Now I can see the effectiveness of CASH and beneficiary selection process is still unclear to some. Also here I guess we're talking about mostly things that could potentially be resolved with a capacity building. So all in all we found that from the pre-survey result that a lot of capacity building is needed. But then there was also a lot of comments that exactly said that without me interpreting. And now moving on to the, to present the task team on CASH for protection. So give you a broad overview for those who don't know that well. So the global protection clusters task team on CASH for protection was established in 2017 to increase the knowledge about the use of CVA in the protection sector as well as the effectiveness and quality of programs using CVA to achieve protection outcomes. It is currently chaired by each one representative of the Women's Refugee Commission and the International Rescue Committee. It is open to any organization, agency or cluster that would like to participate. So the more the merrier. Currently we have a task team membership of more than 30 organizations. The task team is doing pioneering work in the sense given the large gaps and evidence and implementation. We know if you will also through the stock taking paper now where there are, where there is great potential, but we have to work on identifying and scaling best practice. The next slide please. The work plan of the CASH for protection task team is centered around the following objectives. So number one, strengthening the coordination on CASH for protection. Two, map, generate and disseminate evidence on CASH for protection to address critical gaps. Three, support stakeholder capacity building on CASH for protection. And four, mobilize resources to support the activities of the CASH of the task team and its work plan. The next slide please. Three, the task team have just launched the stock taking paper on CASH and voucher assistance for protection, which focuses on CASH and voucher assistance for protection outcomes in the protection sector. The stock taking paper was a collaborative effort among task team members. We had around 40 individuals across 30 agencies working on it. And this is sort of the foundational to the stock taking paper where the evidence mappings developed jointly or individually by different tasking numbers. So the current stock taking paper that we have right now addresses the CASH and voucher assistance for child protection and gender based violence outcomes. And we plan future additions which will then also reflect the evidence on CVF for housing land and property outcomes as well as mine action outcomes. The next slide please. So the key lessons that we found here. Firstly, the study, the stock taking paper confirmed that cash and voucher assistance has the potential to contribute to positive protection outcomes. The evidence suggests that CVA alone is unlikely to achieve meaningful long term protection outcomes unless integrated into a holistic and cross sexual programming. CASH management and referral systems. For example, a cash transfer delivered through case management might help address aspects of gender based violence. Specifically when core GBV response services such as legal services or health services are not accessible due to financial barriers. So therefore, cash can be consented instrumental to a survivor's recovery. On the note on GBV, the persistence of poor practice. So we're talking about mostly poor coordination between cash and GBV practitioners or the failure to integrate cash and GBV programming or the failure to conduct ongoing gender and protection analysis. All these things undercut the potential of CVA contributing to GBV outcomes. The next slide please. In terms of critical gaps, while protection cash or cash for protection or the use of cash and voucher assistance to help achieve protection outcomes. All these terms are increasingly used by humanitarian protectors. But there's still lack of common understanding around these concepts and an absence of common policy and operational framework. Also we found efforts are still needed to understand which forms of CVA conditional, unconditional, restricted, unrestricted or unconstitutional. In terms of critical gaps, while protection cash or cash for protection or the use of cash and voucher assistance to help achieve protection outcomes. Also we found efforts are still needed to understand which forms of CVA conditional, unconditional, restricted, unrestricted. And which ways of delivering cash or vouchers, for example, ADM cards, mobile money, cash in hand are best suited for which type of protection programming. This relates to obviously project design. Moreover, we need to understand better the necessary complementary protection services to reach longer term protection outcomes. Also here we're talking about project design. On the GBV side, we have yet to find out what are the impacts of CVA for the most excluded and marginalized groups of GBV survivors and individuals at risks, including women with disabilities, all the women. Married and unmarried adolescents, adolescents, girls and persons with diverse sexual orientation and gender identities. For child protection, comparative evaluations are needed or still needed to learn across CVA modalities and contacts if conditions tied to CVA for caregivers, for example, can have a significant impact on the well-being of children. So the last slide here on the stock taking paper deal with the recommended actions. So we recommend breaking down silos between CVA and protection actors through mutual capacity building and improved coordination on CVA and protection. The protection sector should proactively reach out to other sectors, including, for example, cash working groups where they exist in country to initiate and maintain ongoing dialogue through local, national and international fora. Secondly, we propose to invest in capacity strengthening of humanitarian staff to leverage CVA for protection outcomes and meaningfully prioritize and center local partners capacities to support also CVA for protection and thereby also realize the localization agenda of the train park. Thirdly, use existing yet limited guidance that is out there already and tools and align it to the processes of your respective organization. Fourth, develop clear eligibility criteria and harmonize targeting and implementation approaches for cash, of cash for protection activities at the country and at the sector levels. Number five, share, publish and disseminate lessons learned from integrating CVA into standalone protection program. Number six, in order to fund cash for protection programming, obviously practitioners need to include cash for protection within donor proposals. Based on context specific assessments and donors on their side also need to resource CVA for protection outcomes and protection programming, and also the related startup costs additional staffing capacity building, etc. All that can support the institutionalization as a standard aspect of humanitarian response so standard meaning standardization of cash within protection program. And number seven, conducting more research on CVA for protection outcomes and protection risks. We need rigorous ethical longer term evidence that adheres to the principle of do no harm, which is particularly lacking in conflict settings because the gaps of knowledge are still vast. Okay. So that was my part. If you could now go to the to the chat there we were posting a link now to a quick poll we invite you to complete. It's a very short one so please complete it now and I will present the results immediately after you finalized it I will just wait for one or two minutes, then presented. Okay, I hope that everyone's coming to an end. Just a few more seconds. Okay. Just waiting. We're closing it now I'm just waiting for the results. Please bear with me. So amongst us so what is your current current role or how what what best describes your current role. We can find that most of us are headquarters based advisors. We're working from 44% followed by protection specialists with 15% GB visa specialists. No, sorry, cash and and CVS a specialist, such as myself was 13% and then GBV specialists with 9% protection coordinators with 11% and then GBV coordinators. Second question. If you are a protection or GBV coordination coordinator or specialist, do you ever give advice input on GBV programming such as GBV risk mitigation. Almost 50% said yes, but interestingly also a 43.6% said not applicable. Lastly, if you are cash CVS specialist in the field that you work with protection or GBV colleagues on risk mitigation. So here we have 2072% who said not applicable and 22.8% who said yes. Other all the others said no. I think that that is, it's a bit surprising to myself to be honest but it's definitely interesting. Now we're moving on to the second part of the agenda. So the tools and the mini training GBV risk analysis. And for that I'm handing over to Joanna Friedman from UNFPA. Thank you Stefan. Hello everyone it's nice to see so many folks on the line today. And I guess it will be my job to tell you that you're you're all responsible for GBV risk mitigation and cash and voucher assistance so based on that poll. But first we wanted to introduce a few pieces of guidance that have come out recently that some of you may be familiar with and I will also hand over to our colleague from UNICEF as well to mention some UNICEF guidance which is coming. But first we wanted to mention the cash and voucher assistance and GBV compendium, which is a companion guide to the ISC GBV guidelines, which is available on the CALP website and on the GBV AOR website. And we also have released last week by GBV AOR and UNFPA guidance specifically for GBV coordinators on your role in advising on risk mitigation GBV risk mitigation in CVA. And this could also be useful for protection coordinators for GBV and protection specialists and and also for CVA experts who are looking at the integration of GBV risk mitigation and cash. So it is a shorter guide compared to the overall compendium and very specific for coordinators in terms of what they can do, working with cash working groups in particular. And now I'd like to ask my colleague Christine Heckman from UNICEF to to speak about some forthcoming UNICEF guidance as well. Thanks Joanna and hi everyone my name is Christine Heckman I work with the gender based violence and emergencies team for UNICEF. We just wanted to take the opportunity to flag that UNICEF uses cash as a modality across pretty much all of our sectors. And so our emergency operations team is in the process of developing guidance for all of those programmatic sectors so health and education and other various types. And so we thought that's the most relevant for this group just to put on your radar is that there there is guidance that's ready but not yet public for both child protection and GBV and they both of those notes build upon interagency resources that are already available that are really about sort of institutionalizing and socializing those resources to the UNICEF specific systems. So the child protection one is really focused on how cash can target risks and vulnerabilities for child protection issues so thinking about things like child labor, family separation, some forms of violence etc. But also thinking about the delivery of cash programming and how we can reduce child protection risks within the modalities for delivery. And for the GBV note, you know, we also see as Stefan included in his summary, great potential for reducing GBV risks through cash, but as Barbara mentioned, there are also, you know, significant possibilities for creating or exacerbating GBV risk in the way we deliver our cash programming. So the goal for that note is really just to help colleagues working in other sectors that are using cash modality to think about GBV risk throughout the program cycle and to weigh kind of pros and cons of different forms of cash from a GBV risk perspective. Whether it's electronic space system or cash in hand, how we can think about what the GBV risks might be and then proactively address those. So as I said, the guidance has been developed, it's still more or less internal at the moment, we'll be doing some field testing later this year and in early 2021 but we can share those resources shortly. That's it for me, thanks. Okay, thank you, Christine. So I will go to the next slide now, and I would like to take us through on behalf of the task team members. And again, I'm Joanna Friedman and I'm working for UNFPA's Humanitarian Office in Geneva, and representing today a number of our country offices as well. And I would like to take us through an interagency tool, which is part of the CVA and GBV compendium that I mentioned. And it's a very simple tool whose audience incorporates all of the colleagues who are on the line today so GBV experts protection experts and cash experts from any sector. And it brings together the concepts of protection mainstreaming as well as some of the more specific concepts within GBV. So the intended users are across protection GBV and cash working groups or coordination groups. And we know that all agencies and sectors are responsible for GBV and protection mainstreaming. So any of the sectors that are using CVA, as well as the basic needs working group should be ensuring that this type of analysis is carried out. Ideally in an interagency way. So, in terms of the main questions that we're asking ourselves with this tool, we want to know how will our agency or our coordination group work with others to address these questions, and from where will you gather the necessary information to fill this out. You could be looking at protection assessments GBV situation analysis and other types of existing assessments, working with your GBV and protection colleagues, and you don't necessarily need to be looking at primary data collection. It's important to mention that it is an interagency tool, it should be filled out with the support of protection and GBV colleagues. And if you're planning to involve beneficiaries, or anyone in the affected population that you're working with, then questions must be carried out by GBV specialists. So if you're thinking about key informant interviews or focus groups that should be carried out by specialists if you're asking sensitive questions. So the purpose of this tool is to ensure that partners who are planning CVA are analyzing context specific protection and GBV risks, and also identifying mitigation measures together. And if it's not perfectly filled out that's okay it's about the process and about bringing together expertise across these different areas to to think through this together. So if we look for example at some of the columns and rows, we have a column on GBV risks, which should be context specific, and we have a column on GBV types. We include that so if we think about GBV types such as child marriage or intimate partner violence, we include that in terms of GBV types because it would lead to a different kind of response, even if there are financial aspects of that risk. There may be different responses based on the type of GBV. And when we say potential benefits in this area we're talking about, for example, a potential increase in women's decision making, or for example using some of the delivery mechanisms that we use for cash and voucher assistance such as mobile phones to double as channels for information dissemination around GBV referral pathways, or other important protection GBV information. So the question we ultimately want to answer is, are we reasonably confident that given our mitigation mechanisms which have been identified by different humanitarian agencies by local partners, hopefully by women and girls but through case managers and GBV specialists. Are we reasonably confident that we can mitigate existing GBV and protection risks and not cause further harm. And in most cases we can mitigate the risk but we need to plan in advance, which is why it's so important to carry out this kind of GBV risk analysis very early on in the response analysis phase, or in the design phase, and if it hasn't been carried out to do it as quickly as possible and adapt our program accordingly. So this is a very simple table, which is an annex to the CVA and GBV compendium as I mentioned and has also been adapted by different agencies within their internal tools. And in the CVA and GBV compendium, it is paired with a decision tree tool. And this decision tree will guide you through the kinds of questions around balancing those risks and mitigation measures and deciding if there are adaptations that can be made to the details of the CVA in order to mitigate risks or if ultimately the decision to go forward needs to be paused while those risks are mitigated. So some of the main questions that this would help us to ask are what are the protection and GBV risks. Are the risks specific to to CVA and these are the questions within the decision tree. Will some people be prevented from accessing the intervention so we see in the in the row on safe and dignified access. We're trying to look specifically at access to the delivery mechanisms of CVA for all of our affected population including women and girls and others who may be more vulnerable or have cross cutting GBV risks and also what sort of accountability mechanisms can be put in place because one of the ways that we can also mitigate mitigate risks is by using our accountability mechanisms and regular monitoring. So that's one example of a GBV risk analysis tool and we hope that you'll be able to use this and it's will share the links to the resources from from which you can download it at the end. And also please feel free to ask any questions in the chat. Thank you. Thank you, Joanna. I'm just pausing because there is some space potentially right now already to address a few questions about your presentation are basically specifically about this tool right now. But if they aren't, we can just postpone that to the general Q&A at the end. I think I'm like looking at the chat box there isn't so much yet right so shall we just bundle them all together in the end. Joanna, do you agree? Yes, that's fine. We can we can look at those in the Q&A. Thank you. Cool. Okay, perfect. Then we're now moving into the third part of the webinar which is the best practices and lessons learned from the fields. The presentations have kindly agreed to present a few of their examples. And we'll start with Kair, who present on cash for GBV outcomes in Ecuador. The presenter present ours are Monica Tova and Catalina Vargas. And I will hand over to you. Good afternoon everyone. This pleasure for me to share with you the experience of cash for GBV in Ecuador. First, I will present a brief context in which this process takes place. It's important to mention that the first pilot we did was in November 2019. And after that we have implemented another four process. So for the first pilot of cash for GBV was focused on addressing the Venezuelan humanitarian crisis in our country that are around 500,000 Venezuelan. Our country was struggling to provide basic services to its citizens and its services are trying to expand to also cover the Venezuelan population. The crisis of the pandemic has worsened the situation and the budget for social policies has been reduced and it's supposed a higher risk for refugees and migrants. Also, it's important to say that the gender based violence is affecting and is affecting host and displayed communities. Seven out of 10 women in Ecuador have experienced some kinds of gender based violence. In COVID has also worsened the situation because protection systems have collapsed in our country and women don't have access to the system. And I say those things because the other four projects that we implement we do during the last four months. So in here in Ecuador, there is a framework for gender violence, but there is a little application resource and will to do so. So the gaps translate into underserved and under protected displaced population. In the government has more than 20 years of experience in social safety nets, however, limited humanitarian experience in CBA and it was demonstrate in this last crisis, I mean the COVID crisis. And finally, the civil society organizations are working hard to bridge in gender service delivery and during the COVID, they have demonstrate a lot of creativity to fill those gaps. So that is the context in which we implement our process. Now I would like to explain the process of how we work in cash for GBB. In the first pilot we were supported by the Women Refugee Commission and our intervention have based in on two care resources on CBA and GBB that Joanna mentioned before. The first one toolkit for optimizing a cash based intervention for protection from gender based violence. And this toolkit was developed by the Women Refugee Commission, IRC and Mercy Corps. And the second one was the cash and voucher assistance and gender based violence compendium that was funded by CARE and is the collective effort of 15 humanitarian organizations. In this pilot, and we are realized that the local partners are very important actor because they are close to the people needs and know the context and the available services in the territories. So we have worked with them in the pilot and also in these other projects related to cash for GBB. And when I say local partners, I mean, mainly with women led organizations. Now, what is the process at the beginning care sign agreements with those partners. And we do an inception workshop to share the methodology and we change the experiences regarding the expertise of each organizations. After that, the local organization identified women who are suffering gender based violence or women that are in risk. After that, they have the first approach with them to take a survey and document the case. And with them, they bill for them and they begin the case management that includes psychosocial assistance and legal support. After that care make the cash transfer through Carly's ATM and after two or three weeks organization come back with these women that are suffering gender based violence to know the impact of the cash and the progress of their plan and they make the post distribution monitoring. And when the project ends care used to make an after actual review with partners and participants. So, why is the lesson learned about those process. So far, we have a system 700 survivors of gender based violence, and we have worked with five women led organizations around the world around the country. Because it's why it's guaranteed that implementation is locally led contextually appropriate and engage diverse local services providers. The inception, the inception workshops and after action review were valued by all partners. There's a force strength roles and responsibilities established establish a sense of team work across the partner organizations created by infer new ways of working and laid the foundation for a strong, strong coordination and action oriented learning. And it's important because we created confident with those organizations and we can implement another process. Also, another lesson is that knowledge and skill were were exchanged between GBB and CBA staff across partner, resulting in service provider breaking out of silos. And I have an example related to that we used to work with a woman led organization that is in the border with Columbia. And this organization during this COVID crisis created a system where the woman had a chance to access for protection services. If they are suffering gender based violence. And you know during this period. But women don't have access to report these these violences because they are living with the perpetrator and and and the organization created a system through emojis. So a woman who are suffering gender based violence, send and send an emoji to the organization and the organization coordinate local system and without organization to give assistance to this to this woman. So this kind of experience we have the chance to to to exchange, and we have the chance to replicate in other cities when in other territories that another lesson learned is that the process of creating a referral pathway or CVR resulting new opportunities to promote existing GBB referral pathways in the community awareness, in particular among crisis affected population. And finally, the carless ATM was accessed delivery mechanism. They were received by participants and initially for their link to formal financial system and cooling the future and hence financial inclusion. So that is the experience of care Ecuador in cash for GBB. Thank you. Thank you so much, Monica. That was already a very interesting. The first example. I'm now handing over to Alexandra, Alexandra Blackwell from ISE to present on cash and IPV in northeast Sear a study that the IRC has realized there. Conducted. Yeah, so this is a study that IRC undertook as part of the distant UK's global program on what works to prevent violence against women and girls. The aim of this study was to examine in an acute emergency setting the change in women's experiences of violence, negative coping, including sexual exploitation, and other measures of well being before and after their health holds received cash. We work to answer this question by pre positioning and evaluation of cash transfers and an acute emergency, which included mapping potential emergencies, and exploring the feasibility of different study designs and what we land found was conducting the study in a government Syria. The research and intervention occurred between March and August 2018. And while the conflict has been ongoing for seven years at that point, it mirrored an acute emergency in that setting, because the locations where we did the study were only just becoming accessible to organizations after the region had been liberated from ISIS control. And in addition, the areas were also hosting a large number of internally displaced persons from RACA after the airstrikes that had occurred in 2016 and 2017. The cash transfer program that we evaluated was a standard acute emergency three month multi purpose unconditional cash transfer program that was delivered to the heads of households, both men and women that were targeted based on vulnerability criteria. And the theory of change for the type of program is fairly simple cash transfers are intended to reduce the basic needs of households in an acute emergency and help them address their basic needs. But we wanted to explore this theory of change further and look at some of the hypothesized pathways of unintended changes from this three month unconditional cash transfer program. So based on existing literature and program experience, we knew that cash had the potential to change protection outcomes in terms of reducing negative coping including sexual exploitation. And that cash could also reduce intimate partner violence by decreasing household stress as families were able to meet their basic needs, or it could either reduce or exacerbate IPV as women's control of cash or decision making changes fluctuated within the home. So based on the feasibility and ethical considerations for the setting, which is a pre post steady to measure these outcomes. And at end line we had a final sample of 456 women with roughly 10% attrition from baseline. We used audio computer assisted self interviewing a classy technology for sensitive items with an external team of female data collectors, and we conducted additional qualitative interviews at and blind with 40 women. And before we go on to the findings, I just want to say a few of the limitations that may have infected our ability to interpret results. So we had a small sample and no comparison group and so the pre post design really limits our ability to make any causal inferences from these findings. The study was also not able to make inferences regarding changes in commercial sexual exploitation and abuse, because these questions had to be removed at and mind you to increase scrutiny of the study. The study also only interviewed one moment per household and it did not have the viewpoints from other members of the household and all items were self-supported, which could lead to under reporting due to the sensitive nature of the items are potentially also over reporting of participants that it could result in increased aid. And programmatically we also wanted to note that the transfer was developed to meet 80% of households needs, which is not the full survival minimum expenditure basket, which is more typical of IRC standard emergency responses. But it was what was being implemented in the region at the time. And so that may have also affected our results. So we can go to the next slide. And so again, just saying that the cash program was not intended to do any of these things except to help households meet their basic needs. But you can see some of the pathway of unintended consequences here. Between baseline and end time we saw that there were fairly consistent positive changes and reducing basic needs and met most negative coping items, but we also saw that there was either no change or worse than protection outcomes. So the program achieved its intended aim of helping households to meet their basic needs, food insecurity decreased. And we saw overall reductions in economics related negative coping. So things such as family debt, begging, selling nonproductive and productive assets and skipping rent decreased significantly. And we also saw no change or increased employment related negative coping such as child labor and expletive work for women that this is likely do more to the short duration of the program and the fact that the program was occurring within their agricultural harvest season. We saw that household stress stayed the same. And we forward this further in our qualitative interviews and found that many women reported that the cash did reduce household pension. It reduced stress temporarily and increased their self efficacy that really came through in some of the interviews but we also found that it increased community and family jealousy for those who are receiving the cash transfers. And also former means of financial support from other family and community members had stopped to not continue that the time of end buying for those women. And several women also really emphasize the stress about the program ending and what the future held for their families. However, we did see positive trends and decision making among married women. We saw that decision making trend and more toward joint decision making and buying both equally decision making for unmarried women. We saw that it trend toward more independent decision making or mainly new decisions. And we saw reductions in other categories being involved in decision making. And this also cannot in our qualitative interviews. But for intimate partner violence, what we found across the board was that IPV increased among married women and significantly for sexual IPV and economic abuse. In terms of sexual IPV, our Syria program teams hypothesize that this could have been due to changes in sexual coercion or using poor sex as a way for a man to research power over his wife. And that economic abuse, which also significantly increased was also a form of control. Again, we cannot infer causality from these findings. Our design of the study limits our ability to draw strong conclusions from this. We also want to note that this could have been due to increased comfort and trust between respondents and the research team over time and be signed to end buying. Plus, we feel that these findings are very meaningful for program considerations. And so we have a few learning priorities coming out of this study. The first thing that we need to design programs to monitor, minimize and prevent risk to women in girls throughout the cash program cycle. We need to ensure that there are exit strategies in place to help families transition. We also need to ethically measure the effects of cash transfers on household members and changes in household dynamics through post-distribution monitoring. And that can be done using some of the tools that were highlighted in the section right before this. And we also need to connect post-distribution monitoring to referral pathways or GBB case management. We also need to look at learning priorities that we need to test different design and delivery elements. We can look at the influence on different outcomes, how changes in targeting the size of the transfer and the duration of the transfer program can influence outcomes. And also examine the effect of plus models and test different types of complementary programs. And finally, our third learning priority was that we need to transition from short-term emergency to longer-hood, livelihood opportunities for women and bridge some of that humanitarian development gap and link participants in emergency cash assistance programs to some longer-term economic recovery and development programs. I'll stop there and then I'll have to answer any questions at the end. So now, Alexandra, as we're doing very well on time, and I've just seen that there are a few questions directly related to the case study. Would you mind if I ask you those questions right away? So the first that I'm seeing here is jumping a bit. If there was a cash plus approach or only CVA, I think you've already mentioned a little bit, sort of, what kind of a project design it was, maybe you can answer that. The second one, the outcomes in CRS are an increase in IPV and economic abuse. So what about the do no harm principles? What are the lessons learned to prevent increase or already in project design? Alexandra, can you explain further on what, how the short period of assistance three months was to factor on many changes observed, whether positive or negative? Particularly is key for many of them. Isn't three months too short? When one more evidence is showing that longer-term assistance makes more sense, I'm assuming is the end of this. So maybe we'll stop at those three questions. Sure. So I can attempt to answer some of these and I can also share the link to the full report on the project brief once we conclude. So in terms of the cash approach, it was cash assistance only and we really wanted to look at that, the emergency cash assistance program for acute emergencies where we only have the capacity to implement cash assistance and don't have comprehensive or expanded programming. And so that was really the initial objective of this study and so it was not a cash plus approach. But based on the findings we're interested in exploring different types of complimentary programs and what could be sort of a light touch approach that might be more feasible in the emergency setting. But again, we were only looking at that cash only emergency response and the potential influence that had on outcomes above that main objective of that type of program, which is just to help households meet their acute basic needs. So in terms of do no harm, this definitely raised some concerns from the program side and what we could do in the immediate term and then some possibilities again for complimentary programs and program adjustments in the long term. We held several validation and action planning workshops with our colleagues in the Sierra region to develop some plans for new models of programs and extending cash programs beyond that initial three month period, as well as linking our case management and other types of GVV programming and services to those participants. And it also, you know, we emphasize the need for monitoring and examining, you know, during assessments and monitoring continually within our cash assistance and other types of programs for negative outcomes for women and looking at GVV in particular. So again, I'm thinking of some of those tools that were just highlighted by Joanna before this session. Sorry, I'm trying to remember the other questions. The last one. I think now that the many, many questions popped up. I'm, I think maybe it might be better after all to to move them to group them and move them to the end and proceed with the next case study if that's okay for you, Alexander. Yeah, yeah. Cool. The next one is cash for women's essential hygiene items and protection in Syria. So I'll hand back to Joanna from UNFPA. Thank you. So, representing the colleagues from Syria today for this presentation. So I want to talk a little bit about a voucher assistance program which UNFPA is implementing in partnership with WFP in Syria, targeting pregnant and lactating women. The operation on this is part of a larger effort by UNFPA and WFP to provide more comprehensive services to pregnant and lactating women, both during their pregnancies and during the postpartum period, and really making sure that the needs of beneficiaries are at the center of the system. So in this case, UNFPA is providing a top up value to WFP nutrition e vouchers, so that women can procure hygiene items, and they can access over 140 WFP contracted shops using the WFP scope cards. And for those who aren't familiar with that it's WFP corporate e voucher system that they use in different countries. So UNFPA is topping that up and that's based on feedback from women who are really keen to have hygiene items in their distributions. So this is expanding now from a pilot of one governorate over the summer period of June to August of this year, which was for about 2000 women it is now expanding to 12 governorates throughout Syria, which will cover 70,000 pregnant and lactating women. The installments will take place for six months at a time so the initial pilot was for three months but it was always with the idea of continuing that for at least six months. And it is for women who are registered under WFP's general food assistance program. So I think it's really important to mention that for UNFPA this is a protection entry point. So these are not just hygiene NFIs. We are looking at this as a connection to UNFPA's existing women and girls safe spaces, static and mobile health clinics, and our implementing partners who help women to access reproductive health services at clinics, help them to access the women and girls safe spaces, which includes things like psychosocial activities and livelihoods activities. So this collaboration already includes referrals of pregnant women to nutrition related assistance, and now we are including this hygiene component, and also integrating GBV and sexual and reproductive health messaging into nutrition informational campaigns at distribution points and also at our existing women and girls safe spaces and clinics where we work. So in terms of lessons learned, we know that development of standard operating procedures to have strong referrals and access to GBV related services has been very important to have clear referrals between the implementing partners of both UNFPA and WFP. And we also have specific referrals for sensitive GBV cases. Another important lesson learned is around messaging for beneficiary sensitization. So messaging that pertains to the importance of proper nutrition during pregnancy and postpartum health messages, family planning. We also know that there is a need for a mechanism to adjust the transfer value. So that's something that WFP and UNFPA are looking at. And then also we are looking of course at beneficiary satisfaction, beneficiary feedback as part of ongoing post-distribution monitoring. So thus far, women are happy that there is now the inclusion of hygiene items along with the nutrition evoucher as it was one of the top demands in the past, particularly for items like diapers, soap, paper towels, which we also think are being used as menstrual pads. And so WFP and UNFPA will continue to monitor through the post-distribution monitoring and see if there are other urgent needs that need to be addressed and to adjust the program accordingly. So we know that that's really instrumental to have that kind of feedback, both through monitoring and through accountability mechanisms. And finally, we know that it's important to have a contingency plan in place in a context such as Syria where the economic and political situation can fluctuate considerably in the coming months. And so UNFPA and WFP are working together to potentially switch to commodity vouchers if there's high inflation or if prices fluctuate. Thank you. Thanks a lot, Joanna. Now moving on to the case example of participation of women and girls to mitigate GBV risks of cash programming in Lebanon. That is an example presented by Empowerment 8, specifically by Alina Potts. Over to you, Alina. Thank you very much, Siobhan. So greetings, everyone. My name is Alina Potts. I work with the Global Women's Institute, which is based at George Washington University. And I'm going to speak about Empowerment 8, which is a project that we're leading with CARE Lebanon as partners for our work in Lebanon, along with ORDA, which is a Lebanese organization. And the project also takes place in Uganda in partnership with IRC Uganda and World Vision. This project is participatory action research over three years and it's in three phases. And it's really focused on mitigating sexual exploitation and abuse. The background is in gender-based violence emergency response and often being part of SCA reporting mechanisms. And as we know, a lot of cases go unreported. And there's many reasons for that. We have a lot of it written up in our findings and you'll find it elsewhere, but a lot of times it's not only the shame and stigma that comes with surviving gender-based violence and thinking about seeking help, but also when it comes to sexual exploitation and abuse in relation to receiving aid, there's a real fear that that, you know, aid will be cut off, there will be retribution, people won't be able to survive. So we look specifically at how do we stop this from happening? How do we make a distribution safer so that there is less chance, there's less risk of sexual exploitation and abuse occurring in the first place? The first thing we did was we worked with refugee women and girls in Lebanon and in Uganda. So in Lebanon, they're from Syria. We worked with a group of 26 women and girls ages 16 to 52. And over the course of about six months, we worked together to really focus on, you know, what we want to achieve in this research, how do we want to do it? And understanding from them, through their observations and their own lives and in their communities, what risk are they seeing in relation to four types of aid? They chose the types of aid so you can see that there's cash and voucher assistance as well as food, water and sanitation and shelter. In Uganda, the focus was on fuel and firewood instead of cash and voucher, but otherwise the types of aid are the same. These findings are written up in a number of documents, a number of reports and briefs that I'll share momentarily, but just to say as part of the process, once we had identified these risks, we also asked them what could be done to make these distributions safer, to make access to these types of aid safer. And so they told us, they gave us a number of recommendations and we went through a prioritization exercise with them and said, you know, which of these are the most important. And in phase two, we're actually testing them. So we're taking what they told us. And with operational partners, we're applying them to their distribution. So we've in Lebanon, we're in the midst of conducting a pilot with cash and voucher assistance and then also with food. And in Uganda, we are conducting pilots with food and dignity kit distributions. And so we're trying to apply what they told us and understand, not only does it lead to greater perceived safety of women and girls when they're accessing these goods or lower perceived risk of SCA, but also, you know, how feasible is it? Does it add cost or does it actually maybe make these distributions more efficient and effective and cost effective as well. It's been interesting doing this in the context of COVID-19, but somehow a lot of the recommendations for things like smaller groups for distributions, more spacing, etc. I've actually aligned a lot with how distributions need to change under COVID-19. And then in this third phase, we'll be looking at peer to peer learning potentially with the third site in Bangladesh. So anyone working in the Cox Bazaar response was interested in being involved, please get in touch, and also further dissemination uptake. So I want to kind of dive deep obviously into the cash and voucher findings for this webinar. So you see a quote here from one of the qualitative interviews we conducted with the Syrian adolescent girl living in Lebanon as a refugee. She said, she might go to the center or to the organization to receive the cash assistance and the employee there might ask her to do something in order to grant her the assistance. Although she is registered and has the right to take the assistance, he asked for something in return. He might ask her to go out with him, for example, she has obliged to. So you can see here and we have many more quotes in the reports and briefs that I encourage you to look through and to really read the voices of women and girls directly. There's an awareness of being registered, there's an awareness of the right to receive assistance. And yet if an aid worker or someone else associated with the aid distribution is demanding sex and exchange for those things, there's also a feeling of having to do that to be able to get the assistance, having no other options. So awareness raising alone is enough, although it's important, but also ensuring that staff are well trained and that we're setting up distribution systems so that they're they're safer so this can mean for example, things like making sure that, you know, where women and girls are accessing cash assistance and how they're accessing it that they have all the information they need to do that. That it's very clear that if that requires transport so many of you probably know the context in Lebanon is more urban and peri urban. If there is transport needed we're thinking of what does transport mean because you know taxi drivers motorcycle drivers and other context etc can also take advantage and in their role in these distribution systems. Could you go to the next slide please. I'll outline a few other recommendations and as I said they're contained in the reports but also in this brief which is specific to the cash findings in Lebanon. Another thing that women and girls talked about was just better engaging them throughout the process right of cash and voucher assistance so they are part of understanding and knowing. How is this assistance being targeted the way it is how is it being used. How can it be accessed what can they do if there are problems for accessing, and there should be a range of ways to report complaints or give feedback, and they can also support other women and girls to know these things so you know this information often can seem maybe transparent or clear from a kind of 360 degree view but really working and talking to people in communities there's a lot of confusion about who gets cash and why and you know for how long and what are the reasons that they might stop receiving it and we really need to make sure these messages are constantly shared in numerous ways through numerous channels and women and girls also talked about creating we're having supported their informal or more formal accompaniment mechanisms that they're able to for example travel together, they're able to attend information sessions together, really supporting that kind of dynamic that's really important for women's engagement and if we're not supporting that it may be that you're offering information sessions but women can actually travel by themselves to get to them it's too dangerous or maybe they don't have childcare, and there's no way for them to come or maybe they're offered at a time of day when women are usually busy. Definitely, we've already talked about information sessions a lot but also better information and communication of complaint and reporting mechanisms and this means multiple channels so radio visual written loudspeaker multiple languages community meetings, having that information and health facilities and other places we know women and girls go and the importance of that is because a lot of the space for exploitation is created by the absence of information by not knowing that offers other actors the chance to come in and either say that they have that information or give false information and use that to exploit people use their power over in a very negative way so while community leaders and kind of traditional leadership structures are important to communicate through, we want to also make sure that we're opening up the types and number of people that have access to that information because information really is power and that we're engaging different groups of women and girls and the entire process that they feel confident and comfortable contacting your organization or contacting as Monica highlighted, you know, working with women's organizations as partners contacting them when there's an issue. So I'll finish there and just say there's a few pictures here you can see one of the the processes that we use was community mapping so that's the top right and that can be a great way of understanding where you're working. You know what are dangerous or safe spaces in this community where do women go for help. You know and kind of identifying maybe places to support through your work or gaps that you could help address. I'm doing this in a coordinated fashion obviously so a lot of this may be done by GBV actors and maybe it's about GBV and cash actors getting together and reviewing those maps together and thinking about how they can fill gaps in a coordinated fashion. Also just to share you'll see a lot of kind of drawings and you see our research officer Fada in the top left and Lebanon sharing back so we really had a commitment to a participatory process in in the design and analysis. An application of our research and we used a lot of visual methods to ensure that literacy wouldn't be a barrier so this can be a great thing to do. As well when you're thinking of information sessions and also sharing information on feedback and complaint reporting mechanisms. So I'll stop there there's a website at the bottom where we have all of the resources listed including the brief on cash assistance and I encourage you to read it and find out more. Thank you so much Alina. We'll move on right away with the next example and then after that I'll go back as I said before to all the Q&A. So the next example is GBV risk mitigation and cash and HLP and Somalia and that is an example by UNHCA presented by Nora Atyendo Oshien. Thank you very much Stefan you pronounced it well. Thank you. Good afternoon colleagues my name is Nora Oshien. I'm based in Mogadishu a protection officer working with UNHCR. But at present I'm under mandatory quarantine in Uganda. I just came for my rest and recuperation three days ago. So the presentation that I'm going to make is with regard to cash about your assistance in response to forced eviction. Our forced eviction in Somalia is one of one of the major risks but before I introduce the subject I just wanted to paint a picture of the security situation in Somalia. The security situation in Somalia is fluid volatile and unpredictable. Incidences, security incidents such as bombing, assassinations, kidnapping and forced evictions have been reported to occur in areas especially areas hosting the IDPs and this is according to the UN report. With regard to natural calamities some of you may be aware that incidents such as drought and flooding is common but currently we are dealing with the flood response. UNHCR together with other partners are responding to the needs of affected population in certain parts of Somalia that have been affected by floods and we're providing assistance in form of cash, non food items, emergency shelter kits, dignity kits and hygiene kits especially for the women and girls IDPs. Our population I think it's important to also give a picture of the number of IDPs in Somalia. According to the government statistics we have about the latest statistic we have about 2.6 million IDPs resident in 2,344 IDPs sites and this is according to the CCCM cluster the latest dashboard report. Now you're looking at 2.6 million IDPs in about 2,344 IDPs sites. Now UNHCR is an organization with our partners we are present in about 126. When it comes to returnees since 2014 when the Trappitan agreement was signed we have so far received about 95,000 Somali returnees, majority from Dadaab and then we have appeal from Yemen and also the neighboring countries. Our refugees are not many we have about 35,000 majority are Yemenis who enjoy prima facie status so I just wanted to give you a picture. I'm going to talk about our persons of concern and the numbers and as you can tell we have a huge number of IDPs but what is UNHCR doing? Now I'm going to introduce the issue, the issue of land and forced eviction. Forced eviction is one of those key protection rates that have even been highlighted by the protection cluster assessment. There are many protection needs but for today's discussion we focus on forced eviction and how it has continued to impact the women and girls. And this is a discussion that have also been discussed extensively under the house land and property working group which is led by NRC, UNHCR is a member. And so as a result of that we've had stations where you know because of lack of documentation and because land is in the hands of our private individuals we have women and girls being evicted because of lack of proper documentation. And on this it also attributed the fact that there are also no strong institutions and as I'll be taking you through the presentation we'll also be able to look at whether what the government is doing in terms of putting in place policies to be able to protect women and even the entire population when it comes to acquisition of property. Our overall objective with regard to this particular subject is to reduce or mitigate evictions and by doing that will also be reducing the vulnerability because forced eviction exposes women and girls to further protection SGBB risks. Now what have UNHCR done with regard to in order to mitigate these incidences of forced evictions? One in terms of eviction mapping and some of these activities what we have done with our partners in Baidaw and Dipen Moga Dishu is whereby we work with the partners and also the community leaders to mark areas that are at risk of eviction. So what we are doing this particular exercise serves two purposes. One is to prevent it from occurring and also with the deprivation because when we are able to mark the areas that are at risk then the community is able to inform us and we intervene in a timely manner. But in situations where it has occurred it's also important because we are working closely with the community and therefore when it occurs we can be able to respond in a timely manner. It's also important to note that we also work closely with the government in this aspect. And when it occurs there's also the joint participatory assessment. We work together with other sister agencies and other other NGOs where in the event that it occurs we are able to conduct an assessment to find out the exact needs. And this is where in the event that the population, the affected population requests or prefers the cash then the cash assistance will be provided. In some situations we are able to provide NFI such as the dignity kit or the hygiene kit or the emergency shelter kit or in most situations sometimes it could be the cash and the NFI. So the targeted assistance in this case would be persons who are identified and in this case it could be the female headed household, it could be the girls. It could be the vulnerable women who enjoy the cash. And now as I move to the next slide please we'll be looking at some of the lessons that we have learned with regard to cash assistance and forced eviction in general. Now since when COVID began a moratorium was issued and I think it would be interesting to also learn how we have been able to track the moratorium. What this means was that we were asked to actually advocate with the government to reduce, I mean to prevent evictions. Since March to June under the HLP working group we were able to observe that the eviction rates had actually dropped from almost 16,000 in March when it was issued to 2,000. So in a way you can see the advocacy successful advocacy and moratorium reduce the evictions. And if we're linking post evictions with associating it with the SDBB then in a way we are able to also prevent incidents of SDBB from occurring. And it's not to say that evictions is not taking place, it's still taking place but with our collaboration with the government and the community and other humanitarian actors we've been able to reduce their rate of evictions. What we have also learned is that the importance of including and working with all the stakeholders, men, women, government authorities and also the gatekeepers. And if I may just mention briefly about the gatekeepers especially in Mogadishu, these are sort of informal structures. They neither report the government or the community and therefore if we really have to protect our IDPs it's important that we bring them on board and have a consultation with them, leave no one behind when it comes to coming up with the interventions that I get at protecting our IDPs. With regard to comprehensive risk analysis in the context of cash as my colleagues also mentioned the previous speakers that was Barbara and Jennifer. They mentioned that we should be responsible when we're using the cash and I do agree because sometimes when you conduct the risk analysis and I'll give an example. Yesterday post eviction has taken place and one of the priorities needs is shelter. And so if you go out in the market you find out that in as much as yes you have consulted the community and they prefer cash. But in the risk analysis or in the market analysis you find out that the prices for the shelter is high or the distance you know to buy these items are high. So if you give the affected population cash then you likely to expose them to further harm because remember I've also mentioned in terms of context and the security the environment is volatile. So you don't want the situation where but you're giving cash to give you so we'll be working almost 10 miles to get shelter, shelter, shelter materials, or you find that the materials in the bucket are expensive and therefore the money you're giving them might not be be used for the internet purpose. So that's why the risk analysis is very important. Sometimes you may give that money but also when you also do the post distribution monitoring. So this is how we've also been able to inform our program when it comes to cash. So there are situations where in as much as that was the wish but we go back and negotiate with them and explain to them why we are not able to give the cash because by doing that we also build trust. There's also the little understanding or no, the little understanding of HLP rights. Again, it's important to empower and capacitate our persons of concern. The national legislation that have been drafted and which which has started which which actually protects our persons of concern and therefore once these policies have been formulated. I think it's only fair that we break it down and inform our persons of concern of the rights. A vision in itself is not illegal but if it's done within the confines of the law. And this is where for instance, if we're talking to our persons of concern. Normally, visions take place where the landlord either, you know, violates the lease agreement and therefore just informing them that, you know, this land has been leased for this number of years and therefore you should know that you can only be evicted after. Or if you hear that it's about to cut then inform. No, so just just basic information about what they need to do in the event that it occurs and also empowering them with the national legislation that actually advocates for their rights is very crucial. Identifying and utilizing favorable protection environment. For this particular point, I just wanted to emphasize that, yes, it is the primary responsibility of the government to protect its citizens including our IDPs. But in our context, what is that the humanitarian actors and also UNS here, especially in the camps, where the IDPs are deciding what are we doing, how are we protecting them. So one, if you're talking of joint assessments and if you're talking about safety audit assessments, if you're talking about any other assessment that maybe is carried out jointly with other actors. And you find for instance that women are complaining that the elements and elements penetrating into the segment, they are unable to use the wash facilities and they are unsafe at night. So with that with that kind of an assessment, we are able to one install the solar lighting when you fence the camp and also maintain the sites. Maintaining sites in this case could be clearing the bushes, because maybe the women feel unsafe when they're going to collect water or fire. So in that way, we can argue that in a way, as humanitarian actors, UNS here, we are protecting, we are protecting our POCs by intervening or providing some of these, I mean, programming, according to the assessment that have been revealed during the discussion with our persons of concern. And therefore the overall objective has always been to improve the protection of women, the cash support, as I also mentioned, insulation of solar lights, distribution of dignity kits, site maintenance, which is also informed by the safety audit. So we have also learned that listening to the voices of persons of concern and in the event that we are unable to meet their needs, that is where now I go to my last point, which is linking to other services, because the needs are great, the needs are many, and with a limited funding, we may not be in a position as an organization to meet the needs of our IDPs, but collaborating and working closely with the other actors, with the government, we in a way try to meet the needs of our persons of concern. And therefore, from my side, that is all from Somalia with regard to forced eviction. Thank you and back to you, Stefan. Thank you so much. That was also a very, very exciting example, Nora. We're now closing the, which I thought were a number of very exciting examples, best practices and lessons learned from the field, and moving on into the questions and answers. So we have already collected a lot of questions and answers and have grouped them together. So we will start by asking a few to Joanna on the GB risks and benefits analysis tool, and then go again step by step to the questions from the field examples. So Joanna, if I may, I would start off with the question that was asked, can you explain the potential benefits column in the tool, the potential benefits column, can you go into more detail here? Sure. And I just want to say as well that I think the one has put in the, in the chat box links to the CVA and GBV compendium so in the larger resource you can also see examples and not just the blank template, but the benefits column is meant to also have us think about how using the modality of cash or voucher assistance could actually contribute to either reducing GBV risks or not creating new risks that could be created if we were using in kind assistance. So for example, we know that CVA when it's paired with complimentary activities when CVA is part of a more holistic program and that it can contribute to feelings of women's empowerment, for example. And that also women are more able to contribute to the household needs and that in many cases they also, there's also a decrease in household tension during the time at least when the cash is given that there's an ability to meet those household needs. There are, of course, other examples as well, but just to say that we need to be able to also think about some of those additional benefits of actually using the modality of cash or vouchers. Another thing that I mentioned earlier is that electronic cash or voucher assistance can also be very discreet. It can be given in multiple tranches and it allows women to access resources and services. So indeed also in that case, rather than an in-kind distribution, we know that mobile phones or other types of electronic vouchers can also have additional protection and GBV risk benefits in terms of not exacerbating risks or even contributing to more discreet distribution of assistance. Thanks. The second question also related to the tool is what is the difference between the context specific GBV risks and the GBV types in the tool? Okay, yes. And this is I think more of a difficult one for those of us who are not GBV and protection experts to sort of break that down. And again, in the compendium, there is a table that gives you some examples of that. But in terms of risk, so for example, if we look at older persons and older women in particular, they may be potentially more at risk of being targeted for theft or assault if it's known that they're receiving CVA. So this could be an issue with the targeting as part of the design, or it could be in the way that that information is shared in communities. And so it's something to look out for. And so the GBV risks would be the targeting of older women and the type would be assault, for example, in this case. Something that might be a little bit more complicated, but which we've seen in a few contexts recently. It's not widespread. So I mentioned it just as one other example is that sometimes when there's an increase in household income, we might see that families are actually better able to afford bride price or dowry, which could lead to the unintended consequence of an increase in forced child marriage or early marriage. And that would be the GBV type. So again, these are very context specific, which is why we don't have one template which is already completely filled out because it really depends on the context and what is happening in the context at that time. And these are the kinds of things that our GBV and protection and gender colleagues might already know about in terms of major risks in the context from their existing assessments and analysis. And so we'd like CVA experts and gender GBV and protection experts to come together and sort of brainstorm about these risks in that context and also think about as well as I mentioned some of the different delivery mechanisms mechanisms of CVA that could actually contribute to reducing some of those risks, or at least to not causing further harm. Thanks. Thank you. A third question and the last one that we grouped together as regarding the GBV risks and benefits analysis tool is how do you ensure that all the different or common threats are covered when working with this tool since it works with them in bulk, basically. I think we can be certain that we will always cover 100% of the risks in the risk analysis tool and that's really for any types of risk, whether it's reputational or fraud or protection and GBV. But that's why we should have as well other aspects of our program such as post distribution monitoring, which may be household surveys but may also be in the case of the COVID context one on one calls with a sample of women and girls. COVID has moved on and maybe focus group discussions with women and girls and checking on some of the mitigation mechanisms that we've put in place, checking if risks have been mitigated and if those mitigation measures have been effective. And also having strong accountability mechanisms in place throughout the life of the program. So I think we can't say that we can be 100% exhaustive in terms of mapping every single risk. But at least bringing the CVA and GBV and gender and protection experts together means that we can cover some of the major risks that we're seeing in a context at a given time, and we're much more likely to put into place mitigation measures if we identify those risks early on. Thanks a lot, Joanna. Now moving on to the best practice and lessons learned from the field. There are a few more questions to Alexandra from from IRC. I think that partly these questions have been already answered but also on the other hand, maybe not also the initial project design, maybe isn't so clear yet. I know the project a little bit, but let's just hand it back to you Alexandra to maybe clarify a few points. The first one is where you're distributing the cash directly to the abused woman in male headed households. And the second one is the second together, because it what comes basically in the same, the same sort of subject that the assessment assistance only targets survivors, or the perpetrators as well and IPV. Yes, so the program was a, what is a very common emergency cash assistance program. It was targeted to household meeting socio economic eligibility criteria for cash assistance to meet their basic needs so it was not targeted specifically to women within the household it was not targeted specifically to GBV survivors. It was targeted to the household generally based on that social, socio economic vulnerability criteria and women were also not specifically targeted as the recipients of cash it was distributed directly to the head of household regardless of gender. So again this is a very common model and emergency cash assistance. And, and so we wanted to test to assess whether that model was influencing the well being of women and potentially influencing GBV. And that the amount of the crash transfer also was determined based on what the larger coordination mechanism within the region the amount of duration of the cash transfer. Thanks a lot, Alexander. Back to you Joanna, because now it's the case example question. What kind of training was provided to staff for this approach that you presented, for example to make referrals, a safe referrals. Okay, yes. So for the staff involved in the UNFPA and WFP joint e voucher program in Syria staff were trained on the basic concepts and principles around GBV so including safe referrals in case of disclosure. And we will also be working on making a case study from that from that project and so hopefully we'll be able to share that in the coming weeks. Thank you. Now, to the example from empowerment aid. So the question for Alina. Are there any mechanisms for the women and girls to report these these abuses. And are there, are they aware of them. Do they trust those mechanisms in your perspective. Yeah, that's a great question. There are mechanisms for reporting so in Lebanon there's, you know, there's a PSA working group they've done a great job getting a lot of improved information and systems into place so there's mechanisms for reporting but there is a lot of distrust and hesitation to report. So this is something that came up in all of our in both countries and all of the places that we worked. For example, I'll just give you an example from one of the qualitative interviews about not only fear and hesitation to report to formal mechanisms but also to share with one's family or community. So for example, one of them said one of the girls we talked to said, sometimes if the girl tells her parents and they are reasonable, they will go to a Children's Rights Association and provide them with information about the incident and they might find her such as his phone number his details his picture. They might find him and interrogate him but he can deny the incident. I know a lot of girls who went through this parents sometimes insist on knowing what's wrong with their girl and urge her to speak so she tells them everything. Some parents are understanding and open while some parents are not and might prohibit her from doing everything. They even might beat her and blame her. I'll just quickly from a community group discussion we had with refugee men. So we also talked to men and boys in this research. One of them said, he might ask her to give him a certain thing I worked with the UN in Syria, one of the employees tried to hold a woman's hand so she called for her neighbor, the employee tarnished her reputation and even though she is an honorable woman, people kept talking about her. It all depends on the way they meaning men were raised. So just to see there's kind of different uses of power there there's ways that, you know, reputation or we're standing in the community can be affected there's a lot of power dynamics that we are often not completely aware of. Although the communities and the women and girls we talked to are very aware of them and we see how, especially with adults and girls that's also related to how you know the relationship with their family and whether they feel safe talking to family members or whether they might be further blamed. So I'll just say that there's a lot of barriers there there's a lot of things that make reporting very difficult. But we do know that some people will want to access the system so we have to make sure they're in place and we have to make sure they're in place in multiple ways as I said and that we are connecting with trusted community sources to help get the information out. And then we also have to always expect that a number of cases are going unreported, hence the importance of all of us, whatever our role being part of mitigating gender based violence and SCA and ensuring that whatever we're doing we're trying to put in place ways to do it safely and I address address known risks so that we can reduce these things happening in the first place. And a second question would be, what do you, from your perspective, how do you value, what's the, what's the added value of training of staff, male staff, maybe in specific on PSA and zero tolerance policies on ethics and compliance and structures, and has that been also part of your project. Yeah, it has been part of our project. So, um, you know, I think it's very important but I think the word training can be many things right so if it's kind of a tick box exercise people come together for a few hours and, you know, aren't really engaged and kind of given a lot of information and then considered trained. Um, that's probably not really getting to the depth of understanding and reflection that's needed to be able to effectively train on SCA and other forms of GBV. One of the things that we did was we developed facilitation guides for the trainings that we did and we've shared all of those on the website so I'll put the website into the chat in a second and you can actually see in our facilitation guides. So, while it's a training on participatory action research on SCA, it includes a section on, you know, training around SCA and gender based violence that really starts at core concepts and we found especially in our second phase and the pilots with the, for example, food distribution. And also with the cash and voucher pilot, you know, there's a lot of staff who maybe don't aren't as aware as we think of exactly what exploitation is and what consent is and there's a lot of victim blaming and this happens also among community members that we worked with. One of our first work was to have processes to have exercises that we could do together that really opened up those issues and allowed us to address them, rather than pretend they don't exist and kind of push them under the rug and move forward so we really need to start with ourselves. It's often an ongoing conversation. There's some great work that I received doing through a project called listen up that uses a curriculum by a wonderful Ugandan organization in raising voices and it's called the get moving curriculum and it really looks at organizational culture around, you know, being better at addressing GBV and SCA so I recommend all of these resources and I'll put them in the chat. Thanks for the question. Thank you so much Alina. And moving on to the UNHCR example that Nora presented. So one participant asks, can you say more on the extent to which documentation actually helps prevent evictions from that participants experience. This has never been a very powerful protection in Mogadishu specifically. Nora, may I just interrupt you for one second. You are a little bit far away. Before when you presented you were much clearer, better. So there are national policies that are in place but they need to be in terms of implementation. We need to work closely with the government so that we have a dedicated land ministry. Issue documents that are not being contested depend on additional cards or if it occurs, the women themselves can go to court and challenge this. So I think that is where the issue of documentation comes in. Thanks. The second question, very straightforward. Can you share the tools for the risks of eviction mapping? Yes, so I also want to mention that this particular activity is under the CCCM cluster by UNHCR colleague alongside ILM and I can share the tools that have been used for this particular task. Thank you so much, Nora. Now that's all from the best practice and lessons learned from the field section, unless there are questions to care. So far we haven't seen any in the chat but please, if there are any, please just mention them in the chat. A few other questions and that is to all presenters from the best practice and lessons learned from the field. Are there good, from your point of view, are there good practices of linking how CVA addresses the most immediate humanitarian protection needs with how it can also build resilience at individual and community level in terms of protection as well? Does anyone have an answer here for us? I can also repeat the question. So the question was, are there good practices of linking how CVA addresses the most immediate humanitarian protection needs? As I understand here, the question says, how it can also build resilience at the same time at individual and community level in terms of protection? Hi, Stefan. I think I can jump in on that. Thank you. I think there are other resources as well that we haven't necessarily put here but which are in the cash learning partnership website. If you look at the protection thematic resources, or we can share a few links afterwards, but there is a three country study from UNHCR that looked at their programming in Ecuador, Lebanon and Morocco, and that looked at GBV outcomes but also at broader sort of livelihoods and resilience related outcomes. So in Ecuador in particular, the cash that was part of what they call the graduation approach program, which has more than just an immediate humanitarian need in terms of objectives and looks at women's resilience a little bit more in the medium to longer term. So I would definitely encourage you to look at that resource. And there are also a few studies that are noted in some of the evidence reviews, which are also in the resources on CALP and there also I believe on the GBV AOR website and some of them are on the GPC website so you can't miss them but there's a series of evidence reviews that was commissioned I believe last year, which all have kind of the same look on the CALP website so look out for those. Thanks a lot. I'm just going to pause for a second to see if any of the other presenters wants to add anything. If not, we have a question from Christel from the mine action area of responsibility who asks. They have a few examples of use of cash and voucher assistance in mine action and the task team has a consultant at the moment researching this topic. Some of the presenters or other participants in this webinar have examples of use of cash for victim assistance and disability inclusion specifically. So maybe already for this question, if we can give our participants the opportunity to unmute themselves so we'll enable that now and you can unmute yourself. For example, for this question, but there will be also other questions where we're going to actually ask you something and would be interested to hear from you. And then this question was if people have examples of use of cash for victim assistance and disability inclusion. Again, if you it's now possible anyone who wants to share anything on the subject can just unmute themselves. I found this is Christine from UNICEF. So within the child protection and cash guide mentioned. There are some references to considerations are quite general and they're not specific examples from country context, but that might be something worth starting with and also, you know, happy to help connect with colleagues that work in our disabilities team if that would be helpful for Christophe. Thanks a lot Christine. If there are any other questions from participants then please raise them now I'm in the meantime I'm just going to ask two questions that we have sort of prepared for you the first one for you as participants of this webinar. The first one is has the covert 19 pandemic forced you as practitioners to adopt your CV a programming due to added GBV risks. And if if so if you have changed your CV a programming how the second one is what areas of evidence would you like to know more about with respect to CV a for protection outcomes what what is the fields within CV a for protection where you were interested in finding out more evidence. Do we have anyone, any of the hundred and 70 participants who would like to share their point of view, or anyone who else, as I said previously, another questions, another question to any of the of the presenters or me, anyone from the task team, please feel free. I'm just going to repeat the two questions that we had for you. Has a covert 19 pandemic in a way forced you to adapt your CV a programming due to additional GBV risks that you detected and if so what did you do. And the second one, what areas of evidence would you like to see or more about and know more about in terms of CV a for protection. Hello, can you. Lauren clear. Yes. Yes. Hi, I'm Nadia. I'm the protection cluster co facilitator in Mali. My question is about the HPC cycle. Last year we had this section on cash and protection. But as here, we didn't have many organization who are using it. We're wondering this year, is it something that we should push or since it has more organization protection organization to try to integrate into the project. So we can have it into the HPC sacros or not. And if yes, what is the best way to integrate it. Thank you. Thank you for that question that that's very interesting. Personally, I don't, I'm not so familiar with that process if anyone is on the line then please share your point of view. Hello. Hi, Stefan. Hi. Sorry, just trying to provide some clarification or Nadia question. So I, for this year, there is also a guideline on incorporating CV in the HPC, which gave some advice and tip sheet on how to the way for a while to do so. I guess that Ocha had undertaken an internal process to check in terms of how CV is integrated in this process as well as linkage to other sector or outcome protection, which was a critical You see for last year, HPC cycle where the protection link C linking CVA and protection is why it was not well addressed. And I think from this guideline on idea you may have a lot of advice and guidance on using it. And last week there was a webinar during the Geneva cash working group where this discussion, there is a discussion on this topic. And I guess you can find the recording of this meeting via the Calpo website to get more information and resource on that. Okay, thank you so much. I will try to find the documentation with Ocha. Thank you. Thank you so much. And as we're now approaching the end I would like to draw your attention to a few resources and contacts which are here on one of the last slide so the first is the cash for protection and stop taking paper and available and many many languages. And then there is the, the website for GBV, a or dot net with thematic areas cash and purchase systems. And we have resources on the cup network. The resources of the Global Woman Institute. And also the contacts for the cash for protection tasks in Leeds so that this 10s and myself, but also for this event, Joanna and that last email address. Just don't know who that belongs to. And lately the, lastly the all the other presenters. And we would also like to draw your attention to the link that I just shared in the chat, which is the evaluation of this session of this webinar if you would be so kind to give us your feedback. And in closing, I would also like to point out to you that on Wednesday. Yeah on Wednesday, the day after tomorrow, and we will host the same webinar again in French. I'm just gonna, that is again at not again that is at two o'clock in two o'clock Geneva time. Lastly, I would like to point out that the stock taking paper will be updated annually to reflect the current state of evidence across all AORs. And we will also be working with donors and implementing agencies to cross or ours to make use of the findings that we presented. There's another initiative of the task team, which is working on mapping for CVA for mine action, which we're planning to finalize by the end of this year. And very lastly we will, as we said in the beginning this was a recorded set of webinars so we will also provide the recording in the end on the GPC website. So, thank you so much to everyone who participated to thank you so much to Jennifer and to Barbara, and to all the other colleagues who presented their field studies. Thank you to Christine and to Trana, and I hope that we could keep the promise from the beginning, which was that you will leave this webinar with new and useful information for your work. Thank you so much.